Was Parking Usairways Dc-9's Wise

[the turtle]

plus reduced training costs...I shared a van comming out of BHM with a NW crew and the Capt had been on the Diesel for 25 years!!!

 

[Kev3188]

NWA did not have as many fleet types to deal with as we did.

[post="249591"][/post]​

Right...Only the DC9-10, the 30/40/50 variants, the MD80, the 727, the 727 vips, the 757,the A319/320, the DC10-30 & 40's, the 747-200, 747F, 747-400 were on the property at the time the refurbishment program began.

By the way, not sure if it still holds true, but in the very recent past, the "9's" had the fleet's highest dispatch reliability.

 

[RedOne]

them.

Oh, and BTW, it is their pacific rim passenger and cargo revenue that has kept NWA out of BK, not the DC-9's

[post="249591"][/post]​

Have to admit that U gave away it's cargo. What do we have now....3-4 stations that air cargo is not contracted out at? I'm sure some guru who crunches numbers will come back and say, "We made more by contracting it out." You'll never convince me of this. I know you have never heard this before...but a good accountant can make number say what they want them to.

 

[justaumechanic]

There was never a good reason to keep the F100 in the fleet.. It had the highest cancellation rate of any aircraft in the mixed fleet at that time.. The highest!!

The RECAS system did help the cooling problem but the aircraft still had cabin temperature problems. On top of that was the cost of materials on the aircraft. Many things were becoming hard to find items and some of the structural componets were 6 month lead time items.. No getting rid of the F100's was a smart move.

The DC9.. The fleet was mixed.. The comment about them being in great shape was only about 1/2 true. Some of the fleet was late 70's early 80's vintage.. They were in awesome shape.. The other 1/2 were late 60's and they were getting tired.. Quite a few structural problems were showing up and some of the systems on the aircraft were in sore need of upgrades. Getting rid of the DC9 was probably a smart move.. I am sure Northwest is 50/50 on the planes.. Nice to own your fleet but the Fuel cost has got to be putting the hurts on them.

US Airways should have concentrated their fleet renewal on the 737-300 and with the 737NG.. The Airbus although a nice aircraft was very costly to integrate into the fleet.. US Airways already had the support structure in place for the 737.. The Airbus was all part of the Wolf free payola kick backs that he got.. No other reason. It was not smart business it was just business.

The DC9 served us well. It was a fine aircraft... It however reached the end of its service life with US Airways.

 

[Rico]

Right...Only the DC9-10, the 30/40/50 variants, the MD80, the 727, the 727 vips, the 757,the A319/320, the DC10-30 & 40's, the 747-200, 747F, 747-400 were on the property at the time the refurbishment program began.

Gee thanks for the neat list.

BTW, our problem was multiple narrowbody fleet types, doing about the same mission. F-28, F-100, DC-9, 737-300, 737-300/400, MD-80, A319/320...

Editing your list of the widebodies, leaves you with one that is smaller, for a larger airline. My point still stands.

But thanks for the info anyways.

 

[Kev3188]

You're welcome.

Okay, so we had roughly 9 narrow body "types." Remember, that among other things, the DC9-10 had a different wing, and that a lot of those 727's and DC-9's had different engines, etc.
Despite your condescending (sp?) response, my point that we had/have plenty of different types in our fleet also stands.

 

[Rico]

I am smarmy in return to the same, right ?

Oh, I forgot, we had 727's then as well. I forget about the USAir Shuttle Aircraft...

But know that two of our types were from a manufacturer (Fokker) that no longer existed (no option but to get rid of them). Many of our Nines were older than your own (not as good an option to keep as your own 9's). And most importantly, we were being shined up for a future attempted sale to United, who as you know had no need nor desire for almost all of the fleet types I mentioned before (and NWA was not up for sale, so they could care less what other carriers wanted/did not want.

Anyways, thanks for the info.

 

[mweiss]

Many of our Nines were older than your own ...

[post="249716"][/post]​

There couldn't have been that many older than N930RC. In fact, there couldn't have been any in US's fleet as old as that. None as old as N8908E, either. Or N8909E. Or N8911E, N8912E...need I go on?

US's oldest was the 107th to come off the line. NW had 24 DC-9s older than that.

 

[BoeingBoy]

US's oldest was the 107th to come off the line. NW had 24 DC-9s older than that.

[post="249725"][/post]​

I think the fact that NW still had -10's tells the whole story - they were the original model of the DC-9. Using today's vernacular, they and the BAC-111's were the first "RJ's".....

Jim

 

[700UW]

And you also forgot the 737-200.

 

[Light Years]

Gee thanks for the neat list.

BTW, our problem was multiple narrowbody fleet types, doing about the same mission. F-28, F-100, DC-9, 737-300, 737-300/400, MD-80, A319/320...

But thanks for the info anyways.

[post="249698"][/post]​

Don't forget we also had B727-200s up until late 2000 for US Airways Shuttle, which was at that time yet another subsidiary.

And the 737-200, both mainline and MetroJet versions. They had every 100-0r so seater under the sun.

 

[ITRADE]

Well, they didn't have any of the Yaks or Tupelov aircraft.

They used to have the BA-146s.....

 

[700UW]

Piedmont did have the YS-11s

 

[Hope777]

Have to admit that U gave away it's cargo. What do we have now....3-4 stations that air cargo is not contracted out at? I'm sure some guru who crunches numbers will come back and say, "We made more by contracting it out." You'll never convince me of this. I know you have never heard this before...but a good accountant can make number say what they want them to.

[post="249683"][/post]​

These are the same Vendor that have led to USAirways LOSING the Air Mail contracts.

 

[gso-crew]

Greg Curtis convinced the company to contract out air freight. ....... Usairways let him go for other reasons a couple of years ago (won’t go there). He now heads up customer service at AirTran I believe.